Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

When publishing the Bill the Minister was quoted in the media as saying he would welcome a constructive debate. The Bill was published last week, although it was expected for some time, and therefore the time for the debate is limited in terms of assimilating what is comprehensive legislation. That type of constructive debate must take place and it is unfortunate that is not the case.

It cannot be overstated that the criminal justice system is the cornerstone of any democracy. Changes to it not only must be well drafted but fully considered. If there is an area of legislation that should not be subject to a guillotine it is criminal justice. The essence of our criminal justice system is that we commence with the presumption of innocence. I value that and I hope everyone here values it.

The consequences of inadequate scrutiny of legislation are obvious. When it came to light in recent weeks that last year's Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Act that was rushed through the Dáil had inadvertently deleted the section dealing with grooming of a child for sexual exploitation, the Minister's first reaction was to highlight the vast number of legislative provisions that could be used for prosecution purposes. Can the same be said of this Bill?

The legislation is reactive in that it is part of a response to an escalation in gangland crime, but resources are an equally important response. For example, the courts are significantly understaffed. The accused often spends years waiting for a trial. Reducing that time would at least limit the need to tighten bail laws. There is a limited availability of prison spaces. When sentences were limited and the bail laws were tightened in the United Kingdom, additional pressure was placed on limited spaces.

Legislation alone will often make little difference without practical resources, which is about enforcing existing laws. It is also about detection because there is no greater deterrent to a criminal than being detected and Garda resources are important in that respect. Additional pressure is being put on gardaí as a result of the administration of anti-social behaviour orders, for example, and the new crime prevention orders. Garda personnel are required to manage the change proposed under section 46 replacing the presumption of the destruction of finger prints, palm prints and photographs with the presumption in favour of retention and to construct databases etc. There is a resource implication in all those changes that takes personnel away from the area making the most difference, that is, detection.

I have major concerns about the changes to the right to silence. We can all conceptualise in terms of the people who misuse the right to silence but it exists as a protection. If that provision is transposed into law for use against people who are vulnerable, those at the lower end of the criminal fraternity or even innocent people facing charges, it must be given serious consideration. The Minister established a group to give expert opinion on that area but bypassed their final opinion. That is similar to the situation where legislation could not be brought forward on the issue of management companies until the Law Reform Commission produces its final report. The comparison is incredible.

I am not against imprisoning those who are a threat to society but people are being locked up for civil debts such as not paying their television licences. If the focus of attention is to be on using the gardaí and the prison spaces appropriately, a range of measures must be taken to free up spaces. An extended use of the Criminal Assets Bureau, for example, in terms of unexplained assets would be an effective use of personnel in creating a deterrent without eroding areas that stray into the area of civil liberties.

I take issue with my Independent colleague regarding civil libertarians being described as people who are in some way in favour of the criminal. Being a civil libertarian is like a badge of honour for me. Civil liberties are not suddenly eroded in a wave like a tsunami. They can be chipped away, so to speak, and one can find oneself living in a country that is unrecognisable. We must be precious about our civil liberties.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties referred to the extension of the number of categories in which the right to silence will be included. There is evidence that the seven days detention provision is rarely used, yet it is being extended to other categories. That is difficult to understand. There is a perception that a very tough measure is being put in place but unless it translates into some practical measure that makes people feel safe on the streets, we will not be thanked for introducing tough legislation that makes no difference to issues like gangland crime.

We must use existing resources and laws in a more effective way but I am concerned we are burdening the gardaí with an increase in the number of administrative tasks such as dealing with criminal protection orders, CPOs. Even with something like the Internet, it is not possible to monitor all the areas that require monitoring and that takes up a great deal of time when the most effective deterrent is the detection of crime.

See this speech in context